Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

best build for $700 gaming pc.

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Build
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
October 5, 2014 11:23:19 AM

hi!

can u guys help me build my dream pc. I will be using it to play games and do some other stuff. all i want is to experience a good performing pc. pc without lags etc. i ask here because i really dont have enough knowledge about computers yet.

Thanks! :D 

More about : build 700 gaming

a b 4 Gaming
October 5, 2014 11:37:29 AM

Do you need an OS, monitor, keyboard and mouse, etc?
m
0
l
October 6, 2014 8:37:42 AM

Vexillarius said:
Do you need an OS, monitor, keyboard and mouse, etc?


yes but i think my money is short if i include these peripherals, but if i do have please suggest a good monitor for me. single monitor ( 1920x1080) is okay.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
October 6, 2014 8:50:04 AM

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4150 3.5GHz Dual-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H97-D3H ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($92.75 @ Amazon)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 270 2GB TurboDuo Video Card ($144.50 @ Newegg)
Case: Thermaltake Versa H22 ATX Mid Tower Case ($34.84 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: LG GH24NSB0 DVD/CD Writer ($13.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 - 64-bit (OEM) (64-bit) ($90.26 @ OutletPC)
Monitor: Gateway KX2153 Abd 60Hz 21.5" Monitor ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $696.30
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-06 11:50 EDT-0400
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 6, 2014 8:56:15 AM

Here's what I came up with, slightly over budget:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($98.98 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.89 @ NCIX US)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB Video Card ($129.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair CX 430W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24F1ST DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Amazon)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($89.98 @ OutletPC)
Monitor: AOC e2251Swdn 60Hz 22.0" Monitor ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($27.89 @ NCIX US)
Total: $726.66
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-06 11:55 EDT-0400

$700 is a very tight budget if you need an OS and monitor.
m
0
l
October 6, 2014 10:04:22 AM

$20 over your budget but here.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($98.98 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI 760GM-P34(FX) Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($55.59 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Momentus 7200.4 500GB 2.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($39.95 @ Mwave)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 760 2GB TWIN FROZR Video Card ($184.99 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (White) ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Corsair CX 430W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($89.98 @ OutletPC)
Monitor: AOC e2251Swdn 60Hz 22.0" Monitor ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
Keyboard: Logitech K120 Wired Standard Keyboard ($7.59 @ NCIX US)
Mouse: Zalman ZM-M200 Wired Optical Mouse ($9.66 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $722.70
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-06 13:03 EDT-0400
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 3:47:17 AM

Vexillarius said:
Here's what I came up with, slightly over budget:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($98.98 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.89 @ NCIX US)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB Video Card ($129.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair CX 430W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24F1ST DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Amazon)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($89.98 @ OutletPC)
Monitor: AOC e2251Swdn 60Hz 22.0" Monitor ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($27.89 @ NCIX US)
Total: $726.66
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-06 11:55 EDT-0400

$700 is a very tight budget if you need an OS and monitor.



What if i remove the OS and go for a better video card, because im planning on using win 7
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 3:51:18 AM

You already have windows 7?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2014 4:49:25 AM

If you already have an OS you can do this:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($98.98 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.89 @ NCIX US)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon R9 280 3GB WINDFORCE Video Card ($194.99 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 600W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($34.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24F1ST DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Amazon)
Monitor: AOC e2251Swdn 60Hz 22.0" Monitor ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($29.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $708.78
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 07:46 EDT-0400
m
1
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2014 7:12:45 AM

Without OS.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($177.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H97-D3H ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($92.75 @ Amazon)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 270 2GB TurboDuo Video Card ($169.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Thermaltake Versa H22 ATX Mid Tower Case ($34.84 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: LG GH24NSB0 DVD/CD Writer ($13.99 @ Newegg)
Monitor: Gateway KX2153 Abd 60Hz 21.5" Monitor ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $699.52
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 10:12 EDT-0400
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 11:27:26 AM

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($139.98 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock 970 EXTREME4 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($74.49 @ Newegg)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital RE3 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($40.59 @ Amazon)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 760 2GB TWIN FROZR Video Card ($184.99 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (White) ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Corsair CX 430W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Monitor: AOC e2251Swdn 60Hz 22.0" Monitor ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
Total: $691.01
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 14:26 EDT-0400
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2014 11:58:22 AM

$700 worth of hardware , which is what i think the OP is wanting


PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MJQDmG
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MJQDmG/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.89 @ NCIX US)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 280X 3GB TurboDuo Video Card ($259.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec Three Hundred Two ATX Mid Tower Case ($58.89 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Rosewill Hive 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24F1ST DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $708.70
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 14:56 EDT-0400


What the OP definitely should not do is include an i5 intel in the build because it forces him in to using a much more basic graphics card .
He should also not use things like the RE3 hard drive someone listed above . Its not for use in a desktop computer

Id also suggest using windows 8 and adding a start button using a free program called classic shell . better license , better support life , maybe a free upgrade to win 10 next year
Share
October 8, 2014 3:57:33 AM

Outlander_04 said:
$700 worth of hardware , which is what i think the OP is wanting


PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MJQDmG
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MJQDmG/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.89 @ NCIX US)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 280X 3GB TurboDuo Video Card ($259.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec Three Hundred Two ATX Mid Tower Case ($58.89 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Rosewill Hive 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24F1ST DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $708.70
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 14:56 EDT-0400


What the OP definitely should not do is include an i5 intel in the build because it forces him in to using a much more basic graphics card .
He should also not use things like the RE3 hard drive someone listed above . Its not for use in a desktop computer

Id also suggest using windows 8 and adding a start button using a free program called classic shell . better license , better support life , maybe a free upgrade to win 10 next year


I have some questions regarding this build:
1. Are these parts compatible with each other? (stupid question but i really don't know that)
2. If for example I'm planning on upgrading my CPU in the future, will that be possible with this build?
3. I from Philippines btw, and if I buy this parts over the internet will it be safe? If yes where? ex. amazon etc.

Thanks :D 
m
0
l
October 8, 2014 4:03:09 AM

That fx 6300 will bottleneck the 280x. Id recommend getting a i5 and a 270x/280.
m
1
l
October 8, 2014 4:21:45 AM

yellowpois0n said:
That fx 6300 will bottleneck the 280x. Id recommend getting a i5 and a 270x/280.


Can you please explain, im noob with this stuff :D 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 8, 2014 6:43:05 AM

Even at 4.5ghz, an FX 6300/6350 is slower than my i5 3570k @ stock, 3.4ghz.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 8, 2014 11:54:05 AM

John Paul Magat said:
Outlander_04 said:
$700 worth of hardware , which is what i think the OP is wanting


PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MJQDmG
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MJQDmG/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.89 @ NCIX US)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 280X 3GB TurboDuo Video Card ($259.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec Three Hundred Two ATX Mid Tower Case ($58.89 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Rosewill Hive 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24F1ST DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $708.70
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 14:56 EDT-0400


What the OP definitely should not do is include an i5 intel in the build because it forces him in to using a much more basic graphics card .
He should also not use things like the RE3 hard drive someone listed above . Its not for use in a desktop computer

Id also suggest using windows 8 and adding a start button using a free program called classic shell . better license , better support life , maybe a free upgrade to win 10 next year


I have some questions regarding this build:
1. Are these parts compatible with each other? (stupid question but i really don't know that)
2. If for example I'm planning on upgrading my CPU in the future, will that be possible with this build?
3. I from Philippines btw, and if I buy this parts over the internet will it be safe? If yes where? ex. amazon etc.

Thanks :D 


They are all compatible .
There are 8 core processors available but you may never need to upgrade
Internet retailers are safe in the country I live in . I would research the store a little .

The intel fanboys are saying some interesting things . An FX 6300 will not bottleneck the graphics card . The total integer math ability of an FX 6300 is about 6% less than an intel quadcore .
The intels can do better in some games that do not use more computer cores well . Generally those are older games . In newer games there is no difference at all in cpu performance , and there can be advantages when using more cores . Online multiplayer particularly .
Here
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6...
You can see the difference . In Farcry2 the intels perform better .
But it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the user experience . You monitor runs at 60 Hz so all you ever see is 60 fps The intels advantage is theoretical not actual . The benchmark says the intel makes 120 fps , what you see is 60 fps . The benchmark says the AMD is 100fps , what you see is 60 fps . Identical .
In a more modern game engine of Crysis the intel i5 is 1 fps ahead of the FX 6300 at 1080p .
The message could not be clearer . Spend more on the gpu and less on the cpu for a gaming build .

In this price range AMD is by far the better option . You have to buy a much weaker graphics card if you use the intel quad and that will just ruin game performance
m
0
l
October 8, 2014 8:52:29 PM

Outlander_04 said:
John Paul Magat said:
Outlander_04 said:
$700 worth of hardware , which is what i think the OP is wanting


PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MJQDmG
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MJQDmG/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.89 @ NCIX US)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 280X 3GB TurboDuo Video Card ($259.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec Three Hundred Two ATX Mid Tower Case ($58.89 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Rosewill Hive 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24F1ST DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $708.70
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 14:56 EDT-0400


What the OP definitely should not do is include an i5 intel in the build because it forces him in to using a much more basic graphics card .
He should also not use things like the RE3 hard drive someone listed above . Its not for use in a desktop computer

Id also suggest using windows 8 and adding a start button using a free program called classic shell . better license , better support life , maybe a free upgrade to win 10 next year


I have some questions regarding this build:
1. Are these parts compatible with each other? (stupid question but i really don't know that)
2. If for example I'm planning on upgrading my CPU in the future, will that be possible with this build?
3. I from Philippines btw, and if I buy this parts over the internet will it be safe? If yes where? ex. amazon etc.

Thanks :D 


They are all compatible .
There are 8 core processors available but you may never need to upgrade
Internet retailers are safe in the country I live in . I would research the store a little .

The intel fanboys are saying some interesting things . An FX 6300 will not bottleneck the graphics card . The total integer math ability of an FX 6300 is about 6% less than an intel quadcore .
The intels can do better in some games that do not use more computer cores well . Generally those are older games . In newer games there is no difference at all in cpu performance , and there can be advantages when using more cores . Online multiplayer particularly .
Here
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6...
You can see the difference . In Farcry2 the intels perform better .
But it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the user experience . You monitor runs at 60 Hz so all you ever see is 60 fps The intels advantage is theoretical not actual . The benchmark says the intel makes 120 fps , what you see is 60 fps . The benchmark says the AMD is 100fps , what you see is 60 fps . Identical .
In a more modern game engine of Crysis the intel i5 is 1 fps ahead of the FX 6300 at 1080p .
The message could not be clearer . Spend more on the gpu and less on the cpu for a gaming build .

In this price range AMD is by far the better option . You have to buy a much weaker graphics card if you use the intel quad and that will just ruin game performance


do you think this video card is better?

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/magatjohn27/saved/hZtLrH
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 8, 2014 10:47:43 PM

Asus is a good brand . They have nice cooling solutions .
I would use the R9 280x if you can afford it
m
0
l
October 8, 2014 11:08:34 PM

Performance originates with the CPU.

Nearly any GPU [within a reasonable context of current market hardware] can play nearly any game at 60FPS with different visual quality settings, but not all CPUs can play any game at 60FPS.

Don't be fooled by those who look at GPU-bound single player sequence benchmarks and then tell you that gaming performance originates with the GPU.

Popular games are compute intensive multiplayer battle simulation, compute intensive massively multiplayer role play, and compute intensive high unit count multiplayer strategy games. In every case, the ultimate bounds of performance will be set by the CPU, not the GPU. In almost every case, you won't find any benchmarks showing the actual performance under the conditions that people actually play because they are not repeatable benchmark-able sequences. The FX-6300 can bench almost any single player sequence at 100FPS+ in almost any game, but its arrangement of execution resources is poor for when the going gets "rough" in the conditions that people actually like to play games (compute intensive conditions). Furthermore, regardless of whether the game scales into many-core poorly or well, NO real-time workloads scale into more-cores as proportionally as they scale into per core performance. In non-real-time workloads, the FX-6300 can trade blows with i5's in raw execution performance, but in real time workloads performance can not scale into 6 cores as well as it scales into 4 faster cores.

I'm not an Intel Fanboy, in fact, I've never owned an Intel machine for myself. Always been AMD because they give ME more for the money for what I use my computer for: FYI: I do not play many games, and if I did, I would not be using an AMD CPU. There is no fanboyism required to see why a haswell core is better for real-time compute intensive workloads than a PileDriver module. Just look at the differences in the arrangement of execution resources and how many of those execution resources can be simultaneously leveraged for a single thread.

--------------

Another thing to keep in mind when building a gaming computer, is that there is nearly a 25% difference in compute overhead running DX11 on GCN hardware vs running DX11 on Kepler/Maxwell hardware. This applies regardless of what CPU is in play, and effects the minimum FPS in compute bound conditions significantly. An overclocked FX-6300 can actually manage to achieve similar or better minimum FPS in compute bound conditions than a stock clocked i5 haswell, if the FX-6300 is paired with maxwell/kepler, and the i5 is paired with GCN.

For a given dollar and DX11 as the target API:

    FX CPUs with GCN GPUs offer the best visual quality, with the worst minimum FPS in compute bound conditions.
    FX CPUs with GK/GM GPUs offers a middle ground option balancing performance and visual quality.
    Haswell CPUs with GCN GPUs offers a middle ground option balancing performance and visual quality.
    Haswell with GK/GM GPUs offers the best performance in compute intensive conditions, with the worst visual quality.


So with that sorted out, it wouldn't be a bad idea to figure out what sort of games you actually want to play, and what conditions you expect to play them in. Multiplayer? Massive Multiplayer?
m
0
l
October 9, 2014 8:54:45 AM

Outlander_04 said:
mdocod said:
Performance originates with the CPU.



Don't be fooled by those who look at GPU-bound single player sequence benchmarks and then tell you that gaming performance originates with the GPU.



http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...



That's an excellent example of exactly what I am talking about. BF3 and BF4 will remain GPU-bound to 60FPS and beyond on almost any CPU ever made in a single player benchmarking sequence like the one linked to there. As soon as we switch to MP with 64 players, that chart is totally useless.

The closest thing I have found to an attempt at benching BF MP is this: http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html

Knowing that such a benchmark could not have been conducted with a perfectly repeatable sequence means that the results have to be taken with some fudge factor. The trending shows that i5 haswell chips produce like 60% higher minimum FPS than an FX-6300, and the difference would indeed be noticeable, with one at ~50FPS and the other at ~30FPS, all other things being equal.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 9, 2014 11:58:12 AM

mdocod said:
Outlander_04 said:
mdocod said:
Performance originates with the CPU.



Don't be fooled by those who look at GPU-bound single player sequence benchmarks and then tell you that gaming performance originates with the GPU.



http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...



That's an excellent example of exactly what I am talking about. BF3 and BF4 will remain GPU-bound to 60FPS and beyond on almost any CPU ever made in a single player benchmarking sequence like the one linked to there. As soon as we switch to MP with 64 players, that chart is totally useless.

The closest thing I have found to an attempt at benching BF MP is this: http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html

Knowing that such a benchmark could not have been conducted with a perfectly repeatable sequence means that the results have to be taken with some fudge factor. The trending shows that i5 haswell chips produce like 60% higher minimum FPS than an FX-6300, and the difference would indeed be noticeable, with one at ~50FPS and the other at ~30FPS, all other things being equal.



Actually its an excellent example of what I am talking about .

The R290X graphics card is not bottlenecked at 1080p resolution by even an FX 4320.
Making it insane to pay $200 for a processor when a $100 one [ like the FX 6300] will give you the exact same result , but free up that $100 extra to spend on a graphics card .

People live in a world with budgets and you will not improve a gaming computer by getting an i5 and slashing the power of the graphics card .
And an R280X will not be bottlenecked by an FX6300
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 9, 2014 12:05:23 PM

At stock it will. FX 6300 is slower than an ivy i3, at stock, and that same i3 starts to bottleneck around the 270/270x mark. Clocked to FX 6350 speeds, would help considerably, as FX's single threaded performance is so poor.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-your-own-budg...



m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 9, 2014 12:36:58 PM

Not sure what your first chart proves , since it does not include an FX 6300 [ at any speed ]

But the second is interesting for showing that an OCed FX 6300 almost matches an i5 , and costs half as much .
A clear win for the FX 6300 AGAIN

Unfortunately we dont know what games . Older game engines do show a clear advantage for intel because they cannot use multiple cores . But then who is building a new computer to play skyrim or starcraft ? [ which are part of the Tomshardware test suite , usually ]

And of course if you had been using these machines in the real world you'd know the i3 tanks in multiplayer . Single player benchmarks dont mean a thing when the i3 rolls over on its back and waves its legs in the air in a 64 player scenario . The FX architecture on the other hand holds up really well . Some times better than the i5 .

To summarize : if you want to play skyrim sure an intel i3 can work , if you want to play online graphically intensive buy an FX 6300 . It performs only fractionally worse than an i5 , but costs less than half as much so you have another $120 to spend on a better graphics card

Clear now?
m
0
l
October 10, 2014 4:12:18 AM

how about this build?

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dkh9RB
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dkh9RB/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-4350 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($28.99 @ Micro Center)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($89.78 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Hitachi Ultrastar 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.49 @ Amazon)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 280 3GB TWIN FROZR Video Card ($156.00 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($38.98 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Rosewill Hive 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Monitor: AOC e2251Swdn 60Hz 22.0" Monitor ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
Case Fan: Corsair Air Series SP120 High Performance Edition (2-Pack) 62.7 CFM 120mm Fans ($24.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $712.19
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-10 07:10 EDT-0400


OR

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($139.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($115.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Hitachi Ultrastar 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.49 @ Amazon)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 280 3GB TWIN FROZR Video Card ($156.00 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($37.99 @ Mwave)
Power Supply: Rosewill Hive 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24F1ST DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Amazon)
Monitor: AOC e2251Swdn 60Hz 22.0" Monitor
Case Fan: Corsair Air Series SP120 High Performance Edition (2-Pack) 62.7 CFM 120mm Fans ($24.99 @ NCIX US)
Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($28.18 @ NCIX US)
Total: $726.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-10 11:18 EDT-0400
m
0
l
October 10, 2014 12:35:10 PM

Outlander_04 said:
Actually its an excellent example of what I am talking about .

The R290X graphics card is not bottlenecked at 1080p resolution by even an FX 4320.
Making it insane to pay $200 for a processor when a $100 one [ like the FX 6300] will give you the exact same result , but free up that $100 extra to spend on a graphics card .

People live in a world with budgets and you will not improve a gaming computer by getting an i5 and slashing the power of the graphics card .
And an R280X will not be bottlenecked by an FX6300


A single player bench-marking sequence is entirely useless for comparing performance in the conditions that people actually play. Who buys BF4 to play nothing but single player campaigns?

You're absolutely right that just about any $50 or better CPU (or older equivalent) can play BF4 in single player mode at 60FPS+ all day. But I fail to see how pointing this out is relevant in a reality where most people who play BF4, play BF4 multi-player, which has an entirely different compute workload (far higher).

I'll repeat again, and I want you to REALLY TRY HARD on the comprehension part on this round because you're obviously choosing to skip over the point being made here and try to stay within a cocoon of false information regarding where gaming performance originates:

Any Modern discrete GPU can play BF4 at 60FPS. The difference between a $100 dGPU and a $500 dGPU will be visual quality while doing it.
Not every CPU can play BF4 MP at 60FPS.

The FX-6300 will have 30-40FPS minimums in BF4 MP (depending on whether it is running Mantle+GCN, DX11+GCN, or GK/GM+DX11) regardless of what GPU it is paired with. It WILL bottleneck the GPU, regardless of what GPU is chosen unless the "goal" is to run at 30FPS all the time anyway.

m
0
l
October 10, 2014 9:32:25 PM

Quote:

the FX-6300 will have 30-40FPS minimums in BF4 MP (depending on whether it is running Mantle+GCN, DX11+GCN, or GK/GM+DX11) regardless of what GPU it is paired with. It WILL bottleneck the GPU, regardless of what GPU is chosen unless the "goal" is to run at 30FPS all the time anyway.


This is what I understand that AMD is for budget wise user and Intel is for real enthusiasts who is willing to spend more for a better experience w/o overclocking. But I'm still on the process of knowing which is better because i haven't own PC yet i dont know which to choose base on experience. And finally if your CPU cant keep up with your GPU, the CPU will bottlenecked your GPU. correct me if I'm wrong.

question:
How will i know whether the CPU and GPU are compatible?
m
0
l
October 10, 2014 11:25:58 PM

John Paul,

I'll let you in on some computer building philosophy that is absolute gold, but that 99% of hardware enthusiasts absolutely can not get their head around:

Match the CPU to the compute workload created by the games you want to play and your FPS goals.
Match the GPU to the render workload created by your desired VISUAL QUALITY and FPS goals in those games.

The ONLY relationship between the CPU and GPU that is important, is whatever variables are created by the differences in compute overhead for different APIs on different GPU architectures. Beyond that, there is no mysticism. The amount of work the CPU must do for 60FPS is the same no matter what GPU you buy. The amount of work the GPU must do for 60FPS is ADJUSTABLE with visual quality settings.

To help illustrate this, consider for a moment that the R7 250X, R9 270, and R9 290, all produce about the same FPS when running at 720P, 1080P, and 1440P respectively, all other things being equal. The R9 290 costs 3X as much as the R7 250X, and offers the same FPS at 4X the resolution. Not bad, but the most important lesson to take from this, is that FPS is inversely adjustable with visual quality. There are no hard limits imposed by the GPU for FPS, you can have any FPS you want (within reason) on any GPU as long as the CPU can serve up the unrendered frames.

There really isn't any such thing as a compatibility issue between CPU's and GPU's. You can run any Intel or AMD CPU with any Nvidia or AMD GPU provided the motherboard interface matches (everything these days is PCIE 2.0 or 3.0, which is all compatible).
m
0
l
October 12, 2014 3:27:11 AM

mdocod said:

The ONLY relationship between the CPU and GPU that is important, is whatever variables are created by the differences in compute overhead for different APIs on different GPU architectures. Beyond that, there is no mysticism. The amount of work the CPU must do for 60FPS is the same no matter what GPU you buy. The amount of work the GPU must do for 60FPS is ADJUSTABLE with visual quality settings.

To help illustrate this, consider for a moment that the R7 250X, R9 270, and R9 290, all produce about the same FPS when running at 720P, 1080P, and 1440P respectively, all other things being equal. The R9 290 costs 3X as much as the R7 250X, and offers the same FPS at 4X the resolution. Not bad, but the most important lesson to take from this, is that FPS is inversely adjustable with visual quality. There are no hard limits imposed by the GPU for FPS, you can have any FPS you want (within reason) on any GPU as long as the CPU can serve up the unrendered frames.


thanks for good information, and yes I don't mind playing games on mid or even low settings. as long as its playable. I have been playing games on my laptop with low settings (Compaq Presario CQ60) , I even turn off any sound effects to a more pleasing performance. For now i'll be reading more stuff about this before i start building my dream PC.


Thanks to everyone
Outlander_04, logainofhades, mdocod, Vexillarius and voyboyfan

Arigato Senpai!
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 12, 2014 2:10:44 PM

mdocod said:
Outlander_04 said:
Actually its an excellent example of what I am talking about .

The R290X graphics card is not bottlenecked at 1080p resolution by even an FX 4320.
Making it insane to pay $200 for a processor when a $100 one [ like the FX 6300] will give you the exact same result , but free up that $100 extra to spend on a graphics card .

People live in a world with budgets and you will not improve a gaming computer by getting an i5 and slashing the power of the graphics card .
And an R280X will not be bottlenecked by an FX6300


A single player bench-marking sequence is entirely useless for comparing performance in the conditions that people actually play. Who buys BF4 to play nothing but single player campaigns?

You're absolutely right that just about any $50 or better CPU (or older equivalent) can play BF4 in single player mode at 60FPS+ all day. But I fail to see how pointing this out is relevant in a reality where most people who play BF4, play BF4 multi-player, which has an entirely different compute workload (far higher).

I'll repeat again, and I want you to REALLY TRY HARD on the comprehension part on this round because you're obviously choosing to skip over the point being made here and try to stay within a cocoon of false information regarding where gaming performance originates:

Any Modern discrete GPU can play BF4 at 60FPS. The difference between a $100 dGPU and a $500 dGPU will be visual quality while doing it.
Not every CPU can play BF4 MP at 60FPS.

The FX-6300 will have 30-40FPS minimums in BF4 MP (depending on whether it is running Mantle+GCN, DX11+GCN, or GK/GM+DX11) regardless of what GPU it is paired with. It WILL bottleneck the GPU, regardless of what GPU is chosen unless the "goal" is to run at 30FPS all the time anyway.



Thank you very much for your input , but unfortunately your inability to run BF4 at higher fps using an FX 6300 is not a universal experience . Most likely a result of your poor software set up

These are multiplayer benchmarks , and the entire article is worth reading
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c...
and
http://www.hardwarepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/B...
The FX with a 7970 is AVERAGING 58 and 61 fps respectively with Win7 and 8

Sure the more expensive chips are better . Why would they not be ?
But enough cpu horsepower to get the job done + a better graphics card to turn up image details is a lot better option than too many fps at low details
m
0
l
October 12, 2014 5:10:56 PM

Outlander_04 said:

Thank you very much for your input , but unfortunately your inability to run BF4 at higher fps using an FX 6300 is not a universal experience . Most likely a result of your poor software set up

These are multiplayer benchmarks , and the entire article is worth reading
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c...
and
http://www.hardwarepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/B...
The FX with a 7970 is AVERAGING 58 and 61 fps respectively with Win7 and 8

Sure the more expensive chips are better . Why would they not be ?
But enough cpu horsepower to get the job done + a better graphics card to turn up image details is a lot better option than too many fps at low details


Yes, that article is very interesting, I found this line to be the most interesting of them all:

Right from PAGE ONE:

"The benchmark was done on an empty server, ..."

The CPU matters for MP conditions, testing on an empty server is barely any different than testing a single player sequence.

If these CPUs are barely able to scrape together 60FPS on an EMPTY server, what do you think happens when there's 64 people running around chucking flak? You might want to read your sources more thoroughly before trying to use them to prove the points you are making. Everything you have posted to use as evidence to support your case is just more proof of just the opposite.

-----------

This isn't 2002 anymore. There is a meaningful discrepancy in compute performance among CPUs in 2014. Hearing the same old philosophies of 10 years ago regurgitated today (GPU=everything) is sad.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 12, 2014 9:37:46 PM

mdocod said:
Outlander_04 said:

Thank you very much for your input , but unfortunately your inability to run BF4 at higher fps using an FX 6300 is not a universal experience . Most likely a result of your poor software set up

These are multiplayer benchmarks , and the entire article is worth reading
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c...
and
http://www.hardwarepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/B...
The FX with a 7970 is AVERAGING 58 and 61 fps respectively with Win7 and 8

Sure the more expensive chips are better . Why would they not be ?
But enough cpu horsepower to get the job done + a better graphics card to turn up image details is a lot better option than too many fps at low details


Yes, that article is very interesting, I found this line to be the most interesting of them all:

Right from PAGE ONE:

"The benchmark was done on an empty server, ..."

The CPU matters for MP conditions, testing on an empty server is barely any different than testing a single player sequence.

If these CPUs are barely able to scrape together 60FPS on an EMPTY server, what do you think happens when there's 64 people running around chucking flak? You might want to read your sources more thoroughly before trying to use them to prove the points you are making. Everything you have posted to use as evidence to support your case is just more proof of just the opposite.

-----------

This isn't 2002 anymore. There is a meaningful discrepancy in compute performance among CPUs in 2014. Hearing the same old philosophies of 10 years ago regurgitated today (GPU=everything) is sad.


I agree the cpu matters in multiplayer conditions .
Because the FX 6300 is almost as powerful as a 2500K in integer math [ the difference is about 6% , though it costs less than half as much as an i5 ] its an excellent mp cpu . Anyone on a restricted budget can build a totally capable gaming computer by matching the FX processor with a decent graphics card

But you cannot make a decent gamer by matching a top end cpu with a weak graphics card .
m
1
l
October 13, 2014 4:25:43 AM

Again, I have to disagree. The graphics card effects visual quality. Visual quality does not make or break a game. A game must first and foremost meet many other requirements to be worth playing. A good game is entertaining with or without good detail settings. A good gaming machine can indeed be made with a relatively weak GPU. FPS in GPU bound conditions is always inversely adjustable with visual quality. On the other hand, there is no adjustment that can be made to solve for a CPU deficit that effects the performance (fps) of a game. Performance in the form of FPS has a very tangible effect on game-play experience (in fact, dipping below a particular FPS can be downright frustrating for some players). Visual quality has much less of an impact on the actual game-play.

A GTX650Ti offers basically the same gaming performance as a GTX680, but at half the resolution. (720P vs 1080P, for example).
If you want 60FPS minimums in BF4 on either of these GPUs, you have to pair them with a decent i5 regardless. So yes, an i5 + GTX650Ti makes just as much sense as an i5+GTX680, but for different monitor resolutions.
m
0
l
October 14, 2014 9:33:59 AM

I definitely agree with mdocod here. When I put together my current build in late 2012, I went with an FX-6300 and an AMD 7870LE, buying into the GPU=performance argument. Even overclocked to 4.4Ghz, my FX-6300 would max out at around 80fps with, and this is so important, routine dips into the 40's in all large multiplayer games. I'd say on average I got around 60fps, but I spent a lot of time below that as well in all of my online games. Obviously my graphics settings made no difference, as the 7870LE is a very capable GPU. Frustrated, I upgraded my motherboard and CPU to a Z87/4770k combo, and got a ridiculous boost in frames per second in every multiplayer game I play (BF3, BF4, Red Orchestra 2, PS2, various MMO's, RTS's, etc...). In BF3 and BF4 I went from an average of 60fps, with regular dips well below, to an average of 100+fps, with dips into the 70's (which I never notice because my monitor is 60hz). If given the choice, I would choose higher fps over better visual quality any day of the week. Playing mutliplayer games on High/Ultra settings but dying constantly because of dips in fps was not ideal.

You most definitely want to match the CPU to your workload. The GPU may be the determining factor for your
enjoyment in singleplayer games, but it will not be so in multiplayer games. FPS matters to anyone and everyone who plays large-scale multiplayer shooters, strategy games, and MMO's, and you can always drop to medium settings to maintain higher FPS. You cannot however adjust any settings to make up for poor CPU performance.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 14, 2014 12:08:04 PM

GPU matters more than CPU, but only to a point. If your CPU cannot properly feed the GPU, the obviously the CPU choice matters. Any locked i5 4xxx can properly feed any single or dual gpu configuration currently available. That is why I generally argue against a K series if the budget is limited. The extra $100 or so extra to overclock, would be better spent on a better GPU.
m
0
l
!